Diplomacy ethics

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

Because of this I have made a number of GOOD friends and can usually expect a fairly easy early expansion period.

Curiously enough, in PBM Diplomacy this sort of behaviour led to various rules to prevent such "Carebear alliances" to rule the ladder... Then again, PBM Diplomacy in the 80's saw a couple thousands people on the ladder, so many more people than I suspect play regularily Dominions 3 MP which are organised on these forums; thus I believe the risk for such "carebears" to have an equally devastating effect on Dominions 3 MP is not that high. Besides, I think it is good there are games where diplomatic agreements are binding, as that hopefully means the "carebear attitude" doesn't spread to *all* games

[Gandalf Parker]

Maybe its a basic difference in the games. One is called Diplomacy and the other called Dominion. By definition it would seem that those should treat the subject of alliances differently.

-- MY NAME IS JUAN!
There can only be Juan. All Hail Juan.

[Belac]

Keeping one's word is different from being a carebear. In Diplomacy, there is no research, no recruiting, no site-searching, and thus no reason to turtle; furthermore, there is no randomness or scripting in combat, so the only way to get a combat advantage is through surprise. In Dominions, you can spend long periods of time fighting no one, then declare war on someone and win. In Diplomacy, that would never happen.

Nevertheless, in Diplomacy there is still value to keeping one's word most of the time. Someone who regularly broke agreements in Diplomacy without any real benefit to them would swiftly develop a bad reputation. "Why did you stab me? You didn't get any useful benefit from it" is a valid reason to dislike someone, even when "Why did you stab me? We had an agreement" is not.